What if Ireland and Scotland(Alba/Pictland) were pagan until much later?

R

raharris1973

Well-known member
What if Ireland and Scotland(Alba/Pictland) were pagan until much later?

How could this have been made to happen?

Not asking for it to be forever, but by way of comparison, I would think it should not really be hard to delay adoption of Christianity in Ireland & Scotland, at least to the 900s timeframe of the Magyars, Poles, Russians, and Danes, or the 1000s timeframe of the Norwegians and Swedes, given how remote they are from European trade and invasion routes. While harder perhaps, holding out to the 1100s-1200s timeframe of the Finns or 1300s timeframe of the Lithuanians shouldn't be *impossible*.

I think Ireland is easier to delay than Alba/Pictland/Scotland.
 
What I was always taught was that Christianity in Northern Europe died out except in Ireland, and then expanded back from there. Allowing the pagans to be converted. Might want to double check that, but I do know that the first time an invading group was Christian was the Normans in 1066. Everyone else showed up, originally, as pagans. So, in your scenario, just have the Irish monks get wiped out, in which case conversion would have to happen through conquest via Frankish crusades.
 
Yinko said:
What I was always taught was that Christianity in Northern Europe died out except in Ireland, and then expanded back from there. Allowing the pagans to be converted. Might want to double check that, but I do know that the first time an invading group was Christian was the Normans in 1066. Everyone else showed up, originally, as pagans. So, in your scenario, just have the Irish monks get wiped out, in which case conversion would have to happen through conquest via Frankish crusades.
Click to expand...


That rather exaggerates the importance of the Irish clergy. Relatively few of the invading German tribes were pagan, only the Anglo-Saxons in England and the Franks in northern Gaul. The vast majority were Arians which put them at odds with the Catholic majorities in the lands they came to rule over. Without Irish Christianity your likely to see the Franks at some point convert to Catholicism - as its in the political interest of its rulers and England dragged along as well although Scotland and Ireland could stay pagan longer. Not sure if that would alter their relationship with the assorted Viking groups - who are still likely to try and loot/enslave them for profit but might make at least a partial conversion to the Norse parathion occur and delay the latter further.

Ultimately Christianity is too tempting an idea for rulers and too intolerant of other faiths for it to not end up conquering the northern areas outside its control - unless it was weakened so much that it ends up failing to Islam which would then replace it as the conqueror of the north.
 
IMO zero impact on the Franks, who convert to Catholic Orthodoxy for their own reasons.

OK - Saint Padraigh is a slave and is worked to death by his Irish masters, the Tr00 Britons - i.e. the Welsh - in their mountain refuges get run over by pagan Irish - an offshot of the Scots Horde, being subsumed as their brethen in the east by Angles and Saxons (and the token Jute!). Same applies to the Picts in the North.
Presto! 500AD Great Britain is 100% pagan.

Now, fast forward to c.600AD - in OTL one of the kings of the Franks - a Great Power - married his daughter to a pagan cacique of Kent. This set off top-down christianisation of the Englisch, there being surviving Briton Christian enclaves +Irish missionaries doing grassroots evangelisation. Same in Scotland.
In this OTL there is no bottom-to-top percolation of the Good News, everybody worships Wotan&Friends or the Trinity of Asterix, Obelix and Dogmatix.

Here there will be continued radiation of Christianity from the continent. Good analogs are - as mentioned - Scandinavia, to which I'd add Nusantara where Islam in a "mostly peaceful" manner replaced Hinduism and Buddhism - in a process lasting about a thousand years.
 
Last edited:
raharris1973 said:
What if Ireland and Scotland(Alba/Pictland) were pagan until much later?

How could this have been made to happen?

Not asking for it to be forever, but by way of comparison, I would think it should not really be hard to delay adoption of Christianity in Ireland & Scotland, at least to the 900s timeframe of the Magyars, Poles, Russians, and Danes, or the 1000s timeframe of the Norwegians and Swedes, given how remote they are from European trade and invasion routes. While harder perhaps, holding out to the 1100s-1200s timeframe of the Finns or 1300s timeframe of the Lithuanians shouldn't be *impossible*.

I think Ireland is easier to delay than Alba/Pictland/Scotland.
Click to expand...
Scotland - do not matter.
Ireland - their monks helped save Europe,so lack of them could lead to our downfall.
 
ATP said:
Scotland - do not matter.
Ireland - their monks helped save Europe,so lack of them could lead to our downfall.
Click to expand...

Irish monks played a small role in spreading Christianity to Scotland and parts of northern England, until they got stomped on by Rome because they had different practices. However their role in 'saving Europe' is a myth.
 
With pagan Britain next door, would west (eastern part less so) Frankia export its 2nd sons to Iberia and Levant? Or would they "crusade" to acquire lands across the La Manche?
So, weaker Reconquista? Weaker Crusades (note the capitalisation) and Kingdom of Jerusalem (if such arises at all)?
Saxony:
- stronger resistance to Frankish conquest - either due to coreligionist volunteers from Britain or weaker Franks?

Why weaker Franks:
- some run off to conquer Britain instead of supporting the "central Gov't" (or whatever we have in such stead amongst the 7-9th century Franks);
- some must be kept at home to protect from Irish or Englisch slaving raids;
- Franks try to conquer (and convert, don't forget the conversion angle of our United Europe branding!) Saxony AND Britain, and fail at both due to dispersion of effort.
 
Last edited:
stevep said:
Irish monks played a small role in spreading Christianity to Scotland and parts of northern England, until they got stomped on by Rome because they had different practices. However their role in 'saving Europe' is a myth.
Click to expand...
They were scholars which started monasteries in France.No irish monks,no Renaissance of Carolingian dynasty.
 
Buba said:
With pagan Britain next door, would west (eastern part less so) Frankia export its 2nd sons to Iberia and Levant? Or would they "crusade" to acquire lands across the La Manche?
So, weaker Reconquista? Weaker Crusades (note the capitalisation) and Kingdom of Jerusalem (if such arises at all)?
Saxony:
- stronger resistance to Frankish conquest - either due to coreligionist volunteers from Britain or weaker Franks?

Why weaker Franks:
- some run off to conquer Britain instead of supporting the "central Gov't" (or whatever we have in such stead amongst the 7-9th century Franks);
- some must be kept at home to protect from Irish or Englisch slaving raids;
- Franks try to conquer (and convert, don't forget the conversion angle of our United Europe branding!) Saxony AND Braitain, and fail at both due to dispersion of effort.
Click to expand...

Interesting ideas. I think the priority for the assorted Frankish groups would be what each one thinks is their best interest. If some think they can gain more power/wealth/influence by attack say England rather than Iberia or Germany then they will but others, depending probably on their location will go other ways. Mind you it didn't stop the Normans having their initial conquests in southern Italy before they sacked England and started buggering up Ireland,

If the British isles stay pagan until ~800AD then what happens with the Vikings? Do the western ones still target mainly the British Isles or do they find the continent - with possibly more concentrations of wealth - more attractive.

If the islands - and hence probably Scandinavia and possibly a good bit of northern Germany as well - stay pagan until the Turks hit Byzantium, or some other issue prompts an eastern crusade then does religious desire to 'liberate' the holy lands trump the desire to attack non-Christians nearer home? OTL you did get the German crusades against the western Slavs and Prussians as well as the predominant attacks on the Muslim lands.

Could go in all sorts of ways depending on the circumstances.
 
IMO Ottoman Turks are butterflied away entirely - too far in space and time from POD.
Even the Sultanate of Ikonium might be a case of "never happened here", i.e no Manzikert (which was a bit of fluke in itself) due to accumulation of butterflies stemming from different events in Francia and thus influencing what happens on the Roman-Lombard and later Frank (East Frank) border.

IMO no difference - in the general - to Vikings or Normans. Pagan or not, the British Isles and the rest of Europe will be raided for loot and slaves. Same goes for attempts to "set up shop", be these in Britain or on the Continent.

If Saxony is subsumed by Franks I see "crusades" against the Polabians (which started more than 200 years before the term was invented) as in OTL, followed by those against Scandinavians, first Danes and later the whole Baltic area. Maybe Jutland ends up as part of East Francia/Germany?
 
Last edited:
Buba said:
IMO Ottoman Turks are butterflied away entirely - too far in space and time from POD.
Even the Sultanate of Ikonium might be a case of "never happened here", i.e no Manzikert (which was a bit of fluke in itself) due to accumulation of butterflies stemming from different events in Francia and thus influencing what happens on the Roman-Lombard and later Frank (East Frank) border.

IMO no difference - in the general - to Vikings or Normans. Pagan or not, the British Isles and the rest of Europe will be raided for loot and slaves. Same goes for attempts to "set up shop", be these in Britain or on the Continent.

If Saxony is subsumed by Franks I see "crusades" against the Polabians (which started more than 200 years before the term was invented) as in OTL, followed by those against Scandinavians, first Danes and later the whole Baltic area. Maybe Jutland ends up as part of East Francia/Germany?
Click to expand...

True their primary aim when they move to raiding will be loot. They will be able to get slaves from non-Christian areas but their smaller size and lower economic level of development, while it will make them easier targets in a number of ways means their also poorer and hence going to have less to offer for raids. Very little gold and other luxuries that would be attractive. That's why I'm thinking they may be more interested in targets on the continent if that offers opportunities.
 
raharris1973 said:
What if Ireland and Scotland(Alba/Pictland) were pagan until much later?

How could this have been made to happen?

Not asking for it to be forever, but by way of comparison, I would think it should not really be hard to delay adoption of Christianity in Ireland & Scotland, at least to the 900s timeframe of the Magyars, Poles, Russians, and Danes, or the 1000s timeframe of the Norwegians and Swedes, given how remote they are from European trade and invasion routes. While harder perhaps, holding out to the 1100s-1200s timeframe of the Finns or 1300s timeframe of the Lithuanians shouldn't be *impossible*.

I think Ireland is easier to delay than Alba/Pictland/Scotland.
Click to expand...
The best point of divergence would be the Romans never conquering Britain. Ireland was introduced to Christianity through its contact with Roman Britain. Irish missionaries converted Scotland.
 
Ricardolindo said:
The best point of divergence would be the Romans never conquering Britain. Ireland was introduced to Christianity through its contact with Roman Britain. Irish missionaries converted Scotland.
Click to expand...
If that happen,we would have no Carolognan renaissance.It was possible only becouse of earlier work of irish missionaries,like
en.wikipedia.org

Columbanus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
They made monasteries not only in France,but also Italy and german countries.Last one was dissolved in 1862 there.
 
ATP said:
If that happen,we would have no Carolognan renaissance.It was possible only becouse of earlier work of irish missionaries,like
en.wikipedia.org

Columbanus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
They made monasteries not only in France,but also Italy and german countries.Last one was dissolved in 1862 there.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of priests from across parts of the British Isles that influenced events in continental Europe but relatively few of them came from Ireland and as the source you posted mentioned those had little influence until they converted to Roman rite and rules.
 
stevep said:
There were a lot of priests from across parts of the British Isles that influenced events in continental Europe but relatively few of them came from Ireland and as the source you posted mentioned those had little influence until they converted to Roman rite and rules.
Click to expand...
Yet without them,it would be no background for what Charlemagne did in OTL.
 
raharris1973 said:
What if Ireland and Scotland(Alba/Pictland) were pagan until much later?

How could this have been made to happen?

Not asking for it to be forever, but by way of comparison, I would think it should not really be hard to delay adoption of Christianity in Ireland & Scotland, at least to the 900s timeframe of the Magyars, Poles, Russians, and Danes, or the 1000s timeframe of the Norwegians and Swedes, given how remote they are from European trade and invasion routes. While harder perhaps, holding out to the 1100s-1200s timeframe of the Finns or 1300s timeframe of the Lithuanians shouldn't be *impossible*.

I think Ireland is easier to delay than Alba/Pictland/Scotland.
Click to expand...
Definitely subscribed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top